Andrew Linzey's article, The Place of Animals in Creation, presents a Christian viewpoint on the issue of animal experimentation. Every year millions of animals are killed in experimentation that supposedly someway benefit humans. The USDA registered research laboratories reported that nearly 13 million animals including dogs, cats, primates, rabbits, farm animals, bears, wild rodents, and others, were killed in experiments between 1990 and 1997. As shocking as that number is, it does not include hundreds of millions of small rodents and birds. Many of these experiments are argued to be unnecessary and cruel. According to the Physicians for Responsible Medicine web site, the EPA recently ordered tests to be done on over 2,800 chemicals. The majority of these tests, argues the web site, are completely unnecessary and an absurd waste of money and life. Such chemicals as rat poison and turpentine are being tested to see if they have harmful effects on humans. Most people !

already know that rat poison will probably kill a person if they consume it, and turpentine is also commonly know to be dangerous. This is just one example of the problems with animal experimentation. Man

Most Christians would probably have some difficulty accepting Linzey's argument as sound. Premise II is Linzey's first major weakness. He argues that because God chose this world as the medium for his self-revelation, it shows that the whole world has value to Him. Some might argue that this is an incorrect assumption. Perhaps God chose humans as the medium of His choice, rather than the world in general. This is a strong argument against Linzey. Christ was God in the form of man, not horse, pig, rabbit, dog, or any other animal. Linzey does not provide enough evidence to show premise II to be absolutely true, thus hurting the soundness of his overall argument.

II. By choosing this world as the medium for his self-revelation, he showed that creation has value to Him.

Linzey's view of dominion is completely different than the view of several other well-know scholars. St. Thomas Aquinas believes that irrational creatures were created for the use of rational creatures (premise 4 in Aquinas's argument). Aquinas is a well-known and respected Biblical scholar. Most modern scholars still accept Aquinas's view of dominion, which would allow the use of animals in any way humans see fit. This weakens the soundness of Linzey's argument only slightly because he could still be correct in his interpretation. No one knows exactly what God meant for humans when He gave them control over the earth, so it does not necessarily make an argument wrong because it disagrees with the more common view. Many Bible scholars also once approved of slavery and abusing women, but not those views have changed.

Linzey anticipates a few countertheories and is prepared to answer to them. The first he addresses argues that man is so much more valuable to God that their needs come before all others. Linzey does not deny that man does have central value on earth, but he states that their actions "must be subordinate to the moral purposes of God" (pg. 126). God values creation, so man is to take care of it, not simply use it. This argument is based upon the fact that God gave man dominion over all of the earth. Linzey disagrees with the counter theory's interpretation of dominion. He believes that dominion should be viewed more as stewardship, and that man must take care of the earth, not abuse it. Another scholar, Rondi Elliot, also agrees with Linzey's belief in the interpretation of dominion by referencing the root of the word.

David Bleich's articles, "Animal Experimentation" and "Vegetarianism", discuss the issue of animal experimentation and overall usage of animals. Bleich uses a Jewish perspective to argue that some forms of animal use are more acceptable than others. He believes that according to Old Testament law consumption of animals and medical experimentation are both acceptable. He agrees with Linzey in that using animals for experimentation for something that is not seen, as a legitimate need, such as cosmetic research, is morally wrong and unacceptable.

Lindzey's argument is valid. It is not possible to have the conclusion be false if all of the premises are true.

5. Aquinas, St. Thomas. Differences between Rational and On Killing.

X. The use of animals as raw materials is a claim of absolute authority.

Andrew Linzey presents an interesting article against animal experimentation using a Christian viewpoint to argue this modern, controversially issue. Although his argument must be declared unsound for the reasons listed above, his argument is still powerful, and could easily move many in the Christian faith to agree with him. Perhaps if more Christians read his work the faith community might make a move against animal experimentation and help the fight for animals' rights. The argument is intriguing and thorough, and find's support in many sources, showing that this is not as uncommon of an argument as one might suspect. Such authors as Louis Berman, and David Bleich would agree with his argu

Some common words found in the essay are:
Christ God, Harold White, Responsible Medicine, Jesus Christ, Creator Linzey, Thomas Aquinas, Berman Testament, Andrew Linzey, Creation Christian, III Linzey's, animal experimentation, morally wrong, linzey's argument, using animals, value god, creation value, raw materials, world medium self-revelation, permission eat, linzey makes, god humans, permission eat meat, value god raw, materials offends god, morally wrong animals,
Approximate Word count = 3238
Approximate Pages = 13 (250 words per page double spaced)